Canister

[PhilB]

Although Shrapnel shells were adopted by The British Army in 1803, canister remained as the prime anti-personnel artillery weapon for many decades after. Little is heard of canister in WW1 however. As a trench war was not confidently predicted, I must assume that it had been decided that Shrapnel was by 1914 preferable to canister. Or was the BEF of 1914 equipped with canister as well as Shrapnel?

[truthergw]

I have a notion that canister was muzzle loaded into smooth bores. It was used in the ACW a lot and that must have been fearsome. I have read of 50 yards range !

[Ogilwy]

Both 76mm ARMD Car and 120mm TK had Cannister in service in the early 80's. 105mm Tk before it also had a Cannister round. I believe they were a throw back to Korea when Tank was faced with mass infantry charges.

Rod

[TonyE]

You beat me to it Rod.

I think the reason that cannister was not used in WWI was because the guns need to be facing the enemy infantry to use it. Cannister separates from the muzzle, unlike shrapnel that bursts at a predetermined range.

Have a look at this video of the American 120mm XM1028 cannister round and you will see what I mean.

Regards

TonyE

[PhilB]

I think the reason that cannister was not used in WWI was because the guns need to be facing the enemy infantry to use it. TonyE

But there was no reason to be sure this wasn`t the case in 1914?

[centurion]

Shrapnel is canister or case shot - just a special form. Before it was named after its inventor it was known as spherical cannister or case shot.. Conventional canister consisted of balls in a tin container that split apart on leaving the muzzle. This could foul the lands on a rifled gun, moreover its range was short and developments of rifled breech loading fire arms (and the machine gun) had two effects 1] infantry could produce a more efective fire over a longer range and 2] because of this artillery was more and more forced to operate from further back where cannister would not be useful.

[Ogilwy]

Hi Tony,

Good to see you made it back! The dig in Belgium went well, but hardly any ammunition so nothing to report there! Another problem with cannister is that it caused excessive barrel wear and relatively few rounds would reduce the barrel to beyond normal use!

Phil,

I have never seen cannister in a WW1 context. I will check at our school which has just about one of everything! I cannot imagine a reason for it to be in service during the Great War. The guns would have to be in danger of being over run by the enemy or mobile and likely to encounter infantry that could swamp it. A 6 Pdr Hotchkiss would be about the only one I could think of that might use it, but that did not have a cannister to my knowledge.

Rod

[centurion]

A 6 Pdr Hotchkiss would be about the only one I could think of that might use it, but that did not have a cannister to my knowledge.

Something called canister was available for this but it actually contained balls threaded on steel wire and was more akin to chain shot.

[Ogilwy]

Centurion,

Ah, fantastic! We, (in the trade), have long discussed the use of chain shot to achieve several aims. I will see if we have one in our museum immediately as this raises even more questions.

Thanks,

Rod

[centurion]

Centurion,

Ah, fantastic! We, (in the trade), have long discussed the use of chain shot to achieve several aims. I will see if we have one in our museum immediately as this raises even more questions.

Thanks,

Rod

Proved very effective when used by gunners in British male tanks, particularly against crews of anti tank field guns.

[CharlieBris]

Slightly off topic but in Oz there are a couple of Turkish guns captured at Beersheba, Palestine which appear to be optimised to fire canister rounds.

From period photos there were at least 7 of these guns at Beersheba.

They seem to have been pieced together from old field guns, the original rifling was bored out to give a smooth bore.

Images, etc at http://www.ammsbrisbane.com/home.html?L0=7&L1=1&L2=20.

Regards,

Charlie

[David B]

Would not canister be useless against men in trenches, or horizontal cover but shrapnel, bursting in the air, be lethal to trench and shell hole cover.

If so, one good reason not to use canister in WW1.

[centurion]

Would not canister be useless against men in trenches, or horizontal cover but shrapnel, bursting in the air, be lethal to trench and shell hole cover.

If so, one good reason not to use canister in WW1.

You could make the same argument for the Peninsular War. In fact Wellington complained that spherical canister (shrapnel) wasn't a lot of use against men in trenches

[Khaki]

Isn't the beehive 105mm round the same principle as canister except that the projectiles are flechettes rather than ball

khaki

[PhilB]

Would not canister be useless against men in trenches, or horizontal cover but shrapnel, bursting in the air, be lethal to trench and shell hole cover.

That presupposes that the staffs knew that WW1 was going to be a wholly trench war - which they didn`t. Would canister have been handy during the retreat from Mons?

Tom R has suggested a lethal range of 50yds for USCW canister - what would it be for the guns of 1914?

The lethality of Shrapnel would, I suppose, depend on the accuracy of the burst and the angle to the vertical at which the balls descend. Since balls are ejected forwards while the shell is on a (slightly?) downward arc, wouldn`t the balls be generally at more like a 45-60 degree angle to the vertical?

Phil B (non-artillerist )

[Ogilwy]

Phil,

We dug a trench complex on one of our training areas and it turned out to be testing just this. It had no HE damage and no signs of being occupied by troops but it did have a huge amount of shrapnel balls. The Arty had obviously been assessing the effect of different angles and burst heights probably on wooden witness screens.

Rod

[centurion]

That presupposes that the staffs knew that WW1 was going to be a wholly trench war - which they didn`t. Would canister have been handy during the retreat from Mons?

Tom R has suggested a lethal range of 50yds for USCW canister - what would it be for the guns of 1914?

The lethality of Shrapnel would, I suppose, depend on the accuracy of the burst and the angle to the vertical at which the balls descend. Since balls are ejected forwards while the shell is on a (slightly?) downward arc, wouldn`t the balls be generally at more like a 45-60 degree angle to the vertical?

Phil B (non-artillerist )

Shrapnel after ejection tends to follow the same trajectory as the shell so probably much less than 45 degrees.

[nigelfe]

In WW1 an angle of descent as great as 45 degs would only be from a howitzer, perhaps some guns in the last hundred yards or so of their max range.

Cannister was obviously direct fire only. IIRC it finally went out of artillery service in the 1890s but I haven't checked. Centurion 20pr cannister was brilliant for clearing undergrowth, no leaf left unshredded.

[CharlieBris]

Cannister was obviously direct fire only. IIRC it finally went out of artillery service in the 1890s but I haven't checked. Centurion 20pr cannister was brilliant for clearing undergrowth, no leaf left unshredded.

I would have thought canister would have lingered on in fortress artillery especially for caponier guns. Cent canister also good for clearing VC or NVA off the engine deck of a mate's Cent - messy though.

Regards,

Charlie

[PhilB]

Can anyone advise - at what angle to the vertical or horizontal would shrapnel balls typically enter a trench? I`m getting the feeling that anyone who is standing by the outer (forward) wall is quite safe so long as his head is below parapet level.

[Khaki]

Can anyone advise - at what angle to the vertical or horizontal would shrapnel balls typically enter a trench? I`m getting the feeling that anyone who is standing by the outer (forward) wall is quite safe so long as his head is below parapet level.

What is probably more relevant is whether or not the explosion of the shrapnel is either above and in front of the parapet, immediately above the trench, or explodes to the rear of the parados. There would be no 'quite safe' place in an open trench from 'ball shrapnel', (bearing in mind multiple explosions from a barrage).

khaki

[nigelfe]

Fired by Guns, almost certainly safe. From Howitzers, not necessarily so, with a steep enough angle of descent some bullets will be going slight backwards (ie that side of the bullet cone) as well as steeply downwards. Try drawing it.

[PhilB]

Khaki - I`m guessing that a shell exploding beyond the parados would spread its balls behind the trench?

Nigelfe - Was shrapnel usually fired from guns, howitzers or both?

[Khaki]

Khaki - I`m guessing that a shell exploding beyond the parados would spread its balls behind the trench?

Nigelfe - Was shrapnel usually fired from guns, howitzers or both?

As far as I know shrapnel was fired by both, as shrapnel was used in an attempt to clear barbed wire, I have a shrapnel ball with a piece of barbed wire imbedded in it. A shell exploding just behind a trench could include in it's 'downward cone of fire' (like a giant shotgun) all parts of a trench, also remembering as at Ypres enemy shell fire could come in from almost any direction.

khaki

[TonyE]

.... A shell exploding just behind a trench could include in it's 'downward cone of fire' (like a giant shotgun) all parts of a trench....

khaki

That is not so. A shell exploding just behind a trench can only throw the shrapnel balls forward, so how can they hit "all parts" of the trench which is behind it?

Nigel's point about a howitzer shrapnel shell descending at a very steep angle is the only circumstance when parts of the trench could be covered by a shell exploding behind it, but then the rear face of the trench would be in the dead zone.

Regards

TonyE